Sir, please tell me if the 'pdf' you're referring to as taking out every year and asking how much safety would it buy about "Oracle AI" of Sir Nick Bostrom is the same as "Thinking inside the box: using and controlling an Oracle AI" and if so, then has your perspective changed over the years given your comment dated to August, 2008 and if in case you've been referring to a 'pdf' other than the one I came across, please provide me the 'pdf' and your perspectives along. Thank you!

Just like you wouldn't want an AI to optimize for only some of the humans, you wouldn't want an AI to optimize for only some of the values. And, as I keep emphasizing for exactly this reason, we've got a lot of values.

What if the AI emulates some/many/all human brains in order to get a complete list of our values? It could design its own value system better than any human.

You could also simply continue working on the review: you are clearly motivated to explore these issues deeper so why not start fleshing out the paper?

Note that I said "continue" rather than start. The barrier is often not the ideas themselves but getting it written in something approaching a complete paper. this is still the issue for me and I have 50+ peer reviewed papers in the past 20 years (although not in this field).

I'm going to write a review of functional decision theory, I'll use the two papers.It's going to be around as long as the papers themselves, coupled with school work, I'm not sure when I'll finish writing.Before I start it, I want to be sure my criticisms are legitimate; is anyone willing to go over my criticisms with me?

Pick outcome with highest Kelly bet and bet on it consistently (I am not sure if this is the best strategy as opposed to some mixed strategy involving outcomes with different Kelly bets).

seems correct, no mixed strategy needed for games without opposing strategy.

Assign p<1p<1 as the probability that you would continue the game for the next round. If p=1p=1, you would be trapped in the Casino for eternity. If p<1p<1, you would almost surely leave the Casino at some point. This satisfies the requirements of eventually leaving the Casino.

This confuses me - you claim that the player is immortal and fatigue-free, and that he values money linearly with no upper bound. What's this requirement to leave? If money is NOT valuable in itself, but only in the outside world, you have to add that conversion to your Kelly calculations, including declining marginal utility, which probably means you leave when no bet has a positive Kelly bet size.